Posted on 03/16/2002 1:32:37 PM PST by humbletheFiend
Conservative pundit Alan Keyes has never been one to shy from controversy, but his latest column for the Internet news and commentary site World Net Daily comes as quite a shock to those of us who believed that Ambassador Keyes was a strict Constitutionalist.
In his column, “Shunning the Intolerable”, Keyes writes in response to a comic strip by artist Ted Rall, in which Rall skewers the industry of 9/11 victimhood, and the associated greed that has overwhelmed the issue. One can understand Keyes discomfort with the satire. It is very direct, and Rall pulls no punches with what he obviously sees as an ambulance chase of epic proportions. Rall is known for his biting satire, and his hyperbole is more than evident in this strip. However, it is Alan Keyes’ reaction to Rall’s satire that is most interesting.
Keyes accuses Rall of “an assault on the decent national sensibilities crucial to the war effort” for his act of, as Keyes perceives it, trivializing the tragic events of 9/11. Not satisfied with that, he then proceeds to crush the Constitution under one of the most contrived excuses for the suppression of civil liberties published by a conservative since the attacks took place. Examining the following excerpted quotes shows a disturbing willingness on Keyes part to use government to suppress free speech.
Quote one:
"Of course, an entire people cannot have so perfect an understanding as its statesmen of the causes that justify, even require, going to war. Human history has taught us time and time again that as the simple faith of the peasant necessarily lacks much of the precision of the theologian's doctrine, so the judgment of any nation will always lack much of the sophistication of the statesman's subtle reasoning."
--- Just what is Keyes saying here? The American people are not ignorant peasants toiling in some remote fiefdom. We are supposed to be an informed electorate. As such, while we lack access to all of the information available to our national leaders (by their design, not coincidentally), we should certainly be able to grasp the overriding moral justification of committing to the act of war. What does Keyes believe endows our leaders with any degree of infallibility when it comes to the issue of committing America's youth to death on foreign shores, not to mention the act of killing foreign nationals as an expression of our foreign policy in the extreme? More to the point, would he be making these statements if Bill Clinton was still president, or is this simply because he has faith in a Republican administration?
Quote two:
". . . the importance of such events, such images, as Pearl Harbor aflame and the Lusitania sinking beneath the waves. These events became slogans precisely because the proximate cause of a just war, which exemplifies the evil being fought, has to be remembered for what it was if the people are to maintain their steady judgment and purpose. Such events are essential icons of the people's faith that their cause is just."
---This is absolute trash, especially when, with the benefit of hindsight, we understand the complexities of both the Lusitania attack (munitions being transported on passenger ships), and the well-documented suspicions surrounding FDR's advance knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor. In other words, unethical leaders could manipulate these iconic events so as to create popular support for an unjust war. The events and images do not, in and of themselves, create the justification for acts of aggression against foreigners. The word for that, I believe, is "propaganda."
Secondarily, if iconic images of unjust assaults against a sovereign nation were enough to commit the populace to war, haven't we provided plenty of those images to our own enemies in the past?
Quote three:
". . . Mr. Ted Rall should have been fired immediately by those with professional authority over him, or in contractual relations with him. Such action in defense of the decent judgment of this people in regard to 9-11 would be more than sufficient to keep such as Mr. Rall from subverting our national resolve."
--- Just how fragile is our "national resolve" if it can be subverted by a comic strip? I see Rall's comic as political speech in the purest sense, and that should be protected speech, not lumped in, as Keyes does, with pornography, simply because he finds the satire offensive.
Quote four:
"But it is worth remembering that when serious and sustained attempts to undermine public opinion on a matter genuinely essential to national life cannot be resisted by other means, governmental action may be necessary. For governmental action is also the action of a free people. Such was the case, despite all the continuing petulant complaints of superficial 'civil libertarians,' when President Lincoln was obliged to suppress rebellion in some northern citizens (some of whom happened to be newspaper editors), so that the rebellion of many more southern citizens could be effectively ended, and our great Civil War to maintain the Union brought to a victorious conclusion."
--- This statement is so shocking I am going to break it down:
". . . when serious and sustained attempts to undermine public opinion on a matter genuinely essential to national life cannot be resisted by other means, governmental action may be necessary. For governmental action is also the action of a free people."
--- What can Keyes possibly mean by this statement? Take 9/11 and George W. Bush’s response out of the equation, and just read the statement straight up. Is Keyes saying that free political speech is limited by the degree to which it might possibly change public opinion regarding a course of action to which the government is committed? It would appear so. If the government senses that the opposition is gaining traction, then, Keyes insists, it is the responsibility of the government to act to suppress the offensive speech. Keyes then goes on to further state that "governmental action is also the action of a free people." That statement is so incredible it virtually defies comment.
Keyes subsequent support of Lincoln's atrocious suspension of American's civil liberties during the War Between the States is just an extension of his flawed logic. It is a frightening notion that Keyes, an individual who is seen as an icon of strict Constitutional interpretation and a defender of individual rights, would deem it acceptable for the President of the United States to incarcerate citizens of this nation because he fears their influence on the opinions of other Americans.
Once again, we are reminded how tenuous our civil liberties are, and how important it is that we remain constantly vigilant as individuals to their eradication by an overreaching and paranoid government seeking to use force to preserve itself against perceived enemies.
See #180. You two live in the SanFernando Valley, right?
Try reading #100 and 102 above, and you will see that at the very least you have been strongly disagreeing with her position.
I wouldn't be concerned about it. She'll see it for what it is.
That's true but since a misrepresentation is continuing, I thought she should be aware.
You realize, of course, that both you and Keyes sound like Plato's "Oligarchic Man", and the protagonists of Camelot and the "Imperial Presidency"?
People so ill-informed shouldn't be allowed to judge their betters -- upon what basis, with what coarse reasoning, superstition, and misinformation would they presume to judge:
1) The Liberal Media,
2) Ivy-educated elites,
3) The "ten wise men" who left LBJ holding the bag for Viet Nam,
4) The folks who brought you Hillarycare, or
5) Just about every other snotbag liberal cabal you ever heard of?
Would you like to think about this for a minute? Oh, wait, time out -- you aren't qualified to have an opinion! Go to the back of the class, and wait to be told what your opinions are.
Catch my drift here? Alan's choosing up sides, and if the recent past is any indication, we ain't gonna get chosen, citizen.
What, is there now a degree requirement for being a citizen? Having an opinion? Discussing Keyes?
Does everyone who doesn't have at least a BA in philosophy from Xavier or better, have to go home? What's the threshold these days?
Since rdf has retired for the evening, I believe, you will have to make do with my less informed opinion. In #74 above, LarryLied charged Keyes with being an elitist because he studied Strauss' ideas, which as I later pointed out were very prominent in intellectual conservative circles at the time. In the post you responded to, rdf, who is in a position to know more about Keyes's thinking, was giving more details, pointing out that Keyes, unlike some other Straussians, was personally religious, as well as a believer in the social usefulness of religion.
There was not even a hint of the ideas that you suggest. Perhaps you would like it if there was a non-degree requirement, forbidding the literate from commenting here. I guess that would work to your advantage. (Sorry to be so sharp, but it is after 4 am, and this information was readily available if you had read the earlier posts).
This quote, if not taken out of context (and I don't see how it could be), spells the end of my respect for Alan Keyes, which hitherto was very great.
The idea that it is necessary for the State to repress dissent through the use of force in order to maintain national unity in a time of crisis is one with which I strongly disagree.
The tenor of the statements cited (some of which could've been taken out of context), seems to be that Keyes believes that the rabble is too stupid to understand the complexities of diplomacy and should just agree with whatever their elected representatives do in their name. While there is *some* truth in such a statement, ultimately the people are responsible for their representatives. If that is accepted as true, then the people do have a vested interest in attempting to determine what their representatives are doing and to address matters when it appears their representatives are not acting in accordance with the wishes of the People or with established Law.
Therefore, I feel there is nothing wrong with people talking about the actions of their representatives and questioning them if they appear wrong. That one form of addressing issues is through the media no one can deny. What Keyes seems to be saying is that such an avenue should be closed if it is against the governments' interests to have such matters questioned. IMO, it is just such ocassions that it is most important that they remain available, and that was part of what the First Amendment was all about.
If Keyes thinks the masses are too stupid to understand the subtlties well enough to make educated decisions on our own, then my response is two-fold.
First, we should ensure that our citizens are educated to the point they can, at least dimly, perceive the reasons their elected leaders are doing what they are doing. This used to be the case, but it is the case no longer. The reasons for this failing are numerous and can be addressed elsewhere.
Second, it is one of the duties of our leaders that they be able to communicate their actions to us in a way we can understand. This is *their* burden; it is ours to listen closely.
Just because our leaders tell us something, doesn't mean we should blindly follow or follow without comment. We are charged to observe and decide for our selves. We are responsible for the country, not them. That is why they are called *Public Servants* and not *Temporary Masters*.
The Constitution does not say, so far as I know, that you only have to follow it when you want to or when it is expedient to do so. There is a means of changing it, it is true, but, to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in it that says you can ignore it. For this reason, I do not agree with what Lincoln did. In *some* ways, it has lead to the sort of things which are happening today. Suspending the Constitution was probably a hard decision for him to make: between breaking the Constitution to save the country and obeying it and risk having the country greatly reduced (I do not say 'split in two' as the South would no longer have been part of the US).
I wasn't alive during the Civil War, but I am alive now, and I would never support the suspension of the Constitution for *any* reason, however noble or important it may seem. If Alan Keyes does not agree with me on this issue, then I will never support him for any public office nor will I support anyone who believes likewise. Since it appears that Keyes *does* believe that it is okay to stifle public discussion at certain times, I no longer support him, nor will I defend him here on FR or anywhere else.
Tuor
Keyes was saying that due to the fact ordinary people do not have the time or perhaps the mental capacity to learn or understand all the political intricasy which moves us to war, images and untarnished memories of events such as the WTC, Pentagon, and yes Pearl Harbor in flames, are essential to keep public support of a war.
Would this be evidence that Dr. Keyes is an elitist?
Mental capacity in this context does not mean dumb vs. smart, which even if it did would not be a basis for thinking one is better than another, but it relates to the spheres people apply themselves in. If I spend my day working in foreign affairs I have a greater mental capacity to understand forces which would compell us to war than if I spent my day being an engineer, or a dog cather.
Both of you might like to add to your consideration these words from the a column by Keyes this month at WND.
****
"Among the many responsibilities and privileges of a free people, one of the noblest is the task of forming and maintaining principled resolve in time of war. Citizens of the free American Republic must supply something beyond what was demanded of the subjects of warlike kingdoms. Along with willing soldiers and a beehive of impassioned support at home, we must supply as well the sustained national act of will to prosecute the war. And this will must be formed from a genuine understanding that our cause is just. Our leaders can and must help in this – indeed, there may be no more important responsibility they face than ensuring that we only wield the sword when our cause is just. But the ultimate responsibility is ours."
***
Tuor, you might consider Lincoln's own defense of the Constitutionality and wisdom of his suspension of Habeas Corpus and his undertaking other measures to stop Copperhead sedition.
I can hunt them down for you if you like.
If you are concerned about the context of the quote you responded to, go checkout the whole column at worldnetdaily.
Whether you like or support Keyes is quite secondary; he is not running for any office; he is addressing you and me as a fellow citizen, and the real question is what we should, or should not, think and do about national resolve and understanding in wartime.
Regards,
Richard F.
I believe you are mistaken, if by "on any of these threads" you mean here at FR. Keyes' having studied with Bloom was discussed numerous times during the primaries, and those who suspect a deep Keyes/Kristol connection have raised the point in the past.
What was new here was the extent of the conversation of the influence of Strauss on conservative thought, and a bit of the content of Strauss' thinking.
Regards,
Richard F.
I've always thought Keyes was an incredibly eloquent speaker -- when I first heard him, my thought was that American political discourse had not had such a speaker for at least 50 years previous.
What I've noticed since then, is that often when I hear him speak, my first thought is "That was beautiful!" followed by "but what did he really say?" I've especially noticed this in trying to condense what is being said to transcribe it on the AKIMS live threads.
In fact, I'd encourage people who disagree with what I've said to go back and read the Transcript of Alan Keyes CPAC Interview. You'll notice that Dr. Keyes has a wonderful vocabulary, but in many sentences, he gets caught up in the verbage and never finishes his thoughts. In others, he uses 20 words to say what he could have said in 5.
Playing to an receptive audience does this over the years. But, as you mention, those who were delighted at first drifted away as Alan became a parody of himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.